|
Avalerion posted:Why wouldn't you just reload if theft fails? If you want to reload and try again, you'll have to actually do something different to get different results. That may mean sending in a character with a higher Stealth skill, waiting for a patrolling character to move along, or using a noisemaker to cause a distraction. Not everyone responds to theft with violence. Regular old folks mostly just get mad and ding your reputation unless there are guards around to go violent on you.
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:Drama requires strong feelings 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
I think it important to say that we had a whole century of playwrights and directors who fought with dramatic conventions for a variety of reasons. Theatre of the absurd, theatre of cruelty, epic theatre, etc. You can also see more contemporary playwrights like Williams, Pinter, and Mamet intentionally playing with viewpoints and second-hand recollections to force the viewer to make judgments or accept unresolved ambiguity in the facts of a story. You can also see a range of emphasis on authorial intent and didactic techniques in how the playwrights authored their scripts. Brecht uses alienation to force a rational analysis of the moral lesson in a struggle. Mamet stresses words to underscore tone even as the dramatic action makes it difficult to sort out traditional protagonists and antagonists. Arthur Miller goes so far as to dictate the "meaningful actions" of the characters to reinforce or belie their motives. The "needs" of drama don't exist; drama is not a master to be served. Novelists, playwrights, directors, game developers, etc. consider an audience (or audiences) and use different techniques (or pointedly eschew specific techniques) to achieve an effect. Antigone, Richard III, Woyzeck, Mother Courage, Jet of Blood, Waiting for Godot, Betrayal, The Crucible, Death and the Maiden, and Oleanna are all part of our dramatic tradition, but each playwright attempted to achieve different effects with different techniques in their time - and each time they are subsequently put on with a new production. To that last point, one of the ways in which plays are not novels is that each production has the potential to re-frame the entire concept of the text through the new interpretation. Video games are not plays, nor are they novels, and even if all of these things use similar elements, they are not the same things in development, presentation, or consumption.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
He's classed as a rogue there. ~*
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
He's dual-wielding sceptres.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Yes. You can also mix them (wand/sceptre, wand/pistol, pistol/blunderbuss) or mix melee and ranged (pistol/sabre, wand/flail, whatever). If you do the latter, you will use the appropriate weapon for whatever range you're at. I.e., if you're close, you'll use the melee weapon. If you're out of melee range, you'll use (only) the ranged weapon.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If we're really getting technical the one-handed pistol blunderbuss was termed a "dragon" (hence dragoon) The kick of a black powder weapon is dependent on what you load it with. A blunderbuss could be loaded with a mild or heavy charge. One-handed blunderbusses were called dragons, but a dragon is a type of blunderbuss, and I think more people are familiar with "blunderbuss" and what that implies.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Milli posted:ropekid plz tell me about Sesame's near death experience so I can be happy she survived and inspired Animancy Cat https://www.instagram.com/p/BON3dy1AQiK/?taken-by=jesawyer1975 https://www.instagram.com/p/BOgKbSAAv_g/?taken-by=jesawyer1975 https://www.instagram.com/p/BO_Mr--ApTv/?taken-by=jesawyer1975 https://www.instagram.com/p/BPJKspkAOH3/?taken-by=jesawyer1975 https://www.instagram.com/p/BPMCL7rgK94/?taken-by=jesawyer1975 https://www.instagram.com/p/BPsURTVgzcW/?taken-by=jesawyer1975 https://www.instagram.com/p/BQOC5sbAzoa/?taken-by=jesawyer1975 https://www.instagram.com/p/BQtKlimFrJA/?taken-by=jesawyer1975 https://www.instagram.com/p/BUPIuAIlDPO/?taken-by=jesawyer1975
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
It's extremely rare that anyone brings up non-PC interface questions like, "How would this work on a tablet?" or "How would this work on a console?" and my answer is always, "I don't know or care." If we develop a game that's intended to be cross-platform, I have no problem entertaining those questions, but Pillars and Deadfire are both being developed for Windows/Mac/Linux, and that's it. I am not willing to compromise any aspect of the game's design for the possibility that maybe someday someone will want to put it on another platform.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
The TTRPG doesn't share much, mechanically, with the CRPG. Also, a lot of us would love to make a turn-based tactics Pillars game.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Both classes can have subclasses.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Scorchy posted:Barbarian/Berserker kit makes your Carnage inflict friendly fire
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Every class has a base version and at least 3 subclasses with bonuses and penalties. Priests, paladins, and wizards have more than 3. Priests and paladins have the number needed to support the gods and orders from Pillars 1 and wizards have school specialists that are lower impact than most other subclasses.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
The mechanics have changed a bit from when we first announced it both to ensure more combinations are viable and to save some implementation nightmares, but yeah it's difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Fair Bear Maiden posted:I care more about not having trap choices than I do about preventing broken combinations, though some really OP builds should probably be patched out to avoid creating a de facto encouraged way to play the game.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
ChrisBTY posted:The game isn't really about the writing or the plot. But what writing/plot there is does a good job of selling the mood and the game world.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
User posted:Multi-classing makes this way harder, since usually the result is you either get, say, a fighter/wizard who is bad at fighting and bad at magic, or a situation like 2nd edition dual classing. I'm intrigued to see how Deadfire handles this. Personally, I don't think approaching it from the equipment angle works well. In part, this is because post-2nd Ed. AD&D's mechanics don't consistently present "heavy" weapons or "heavy" armor as fundamentally superior to their lighter counterparts. You could, but in so doing you are implicitly suggesting that using anything but the equipment in those categories is mechanically inferior. The lightly-armored swashbuckler in leather with a rapier becomes an entertaining concept/roleplaying choice, not something you can realistically keep pace with in combat because the system's mechanics make plate armor and a great sword better in most circumstances. E.g. The Complete Fighter's Handbook for 2nd Ed. introduced the Swashbuckler kit. You specialized in stiletto, main-gauche, and rapier; got a whopping +2 bonus to AC when in light armor (i.e. leather or lighter) or no armor; and a bonus to interactions with the opposite sex. But ultimately you were a bad fighter, mechanically. +2 to AC could't make up for the fact that leather's base 8 is in competition with plate's base 3, field plate's base 2, and full plate's base 1. Being able to gain +1 to Parry with a basket hilt was in competition with a two-handed sword doing 1d10/3d6 damage. You could contrive situations where the heavily armored fighter with a massive weapon got into trouble, but it was just that: a contrivance. Once you moved to 3E, heavy armor no longer had the sense of being strictly superior. It had inherent movement penalties, inherent max Dex bonuses, etc. If you had a high Dex and no arcane caster classes, going with chain shirt was the de facto good choice. If you had low Dex, heavy armor. And medium armor was pretty much ignored. You could say, "Ah, but isn't it good that light armor is now more viable for fighting classes?" Sure, but heavy armor proficiencies are things that cost resources and heavy armor is a thing that arcane casters have penalties to use, implying that there's something inherently valuable about them -- when in reality, most classes have one or two optimal types of armor they can wear based on their classes and stats (i.e. Strength and Dex). In 4E, armor and weapon choices ossified even more. IME, if you were in hide armor at 6th level, you'd be in hide armor at 16th. You were just picking what type of hide armor you wanted to be in, which feels pretty boring, IMO. All of this is to say that you can't really have these things both ways. Either certain classifications or armor and weapons are designed to be fundamentally better than others or they aren't. If they are, you can design MC mechanics around limiting access to them, but those categories are always the optimal categories and selecting anything else is inherently bad unless you're restricted. If the weapons and armor are designed to have situational or build-specific trade-offs and not to be inherently superior/inferior, limiting access to categories only works if the restrictions are extremely tight, i.e. more is excluded than included. Otherwise you just build for the equipment you can use, which is designed to be on-par with what you can't use, and you have access to enough choices to adapt to any situation you come across. Subjunctive posted:Ah, ok. It wasn't there when I checked, or I couldn't find it, but it's been a while.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
Yes, though the costs increase much more as you gain levels.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
That is how most groups play IME, but being (effectively) forced to remake a character because the fundamental concept isn't viable isn't particularly fun. Yes, GMs and groups should allow it, but it's certainly nice when the mechanics aren't full of traps/mechanically bad concepts. A few years ago, I played in a 3.5 game where someone wanted to play a charismatic talky fighter. Not a paladin. A fighter. The character was bad at talking and bad at fighting, full stop. Later, that player dropped out and I made a noble/marshal who was insanely good at talking, pretty good at fighting, and granted a bunch of bonuses to allies around her. The difference between us was that I knew 3.5 very well and the other player didn't. Powergaming the system didn't make me role-play the character any less than the other player. I was just role-playing a character who could mechanically bulldoze the old character in every way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
We did, and that combination of classes didn't fit his character concept, which was a poor nobody who learned how to fight and got by on his wits and charm. Paladin didn't fit, noble really didn't fit, and marshal didn't fit at all. He wanted to be a fighter and 3E/3.5 gives fighters a bunch of hit points, BAB, and feats but basically kicks them in the groin, skill-wise. Unless you're playing a 3E Swashbuckler (which we already had), Int and Cha are dump stats, you get 2 skill points per level, and most conversation skills are cross-class. The reason why the numbers actually matter is because the GM/DM needs to design content for the range of characters. If some players have incredible system mastery and others don't, it creates problems sooner or later. E: The gulf between the old character and new one was so vast that the old character could roll a 20 and the new could roll a 1 on a Diplomacy check and she'd still have a better total. The GM can't realistically design obstacles for that unless they're dynamically adjusting everything, which players catch on to. rope kid fucked around with this message at 03:58 on Sep 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:Well then that guy was either an idiot or someone with no imagination, just play the class that mechanically fits your idea and call it whatever you want? A charismatic, talky fighter in 5E is much more viable than in 3E in part because Charisma has a slight defensive application and skills don't scale off into outer space.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
bongwizzard posted:I just typed a bunch of stuff but I deleted when I realized that I was more less making an argument for classless systems 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
I think you're talking past me. I wouldn't dispute the effectiveness of armor historically or today, nor the limitations of armor. You can certainly model those elements out. Doing so would create a game that feels wholly dissimilar to A/D&D, mechanically. Chainmail and D&D were never all that simulationist, anyway. I think one of A/D&D's weaknesses is to straddle that line ambiguously, which is why I erred on the side of more viable options. On a side note, I've studied Agincourt and the Hundred Years War pretty heavily since I was about 15 and read a variety of books on it. Heavy cavalry didn't die out or really adapt much at all immediately after Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. The circumstances of Agincourt were extraordinarily bad for the French heavy cavalry, who were literally sitting behind their infantry ranks as they funneled into a muddy strip while being pelted with arrows. The cavalry broke their own infantry ranks to charge forward, which threw everything into chaos and left their horses in that same muddy strip running up against stakes. Good plate armor is incredibly strong and while a fresh knight (as the vast majority of them were) would be unnerved by a hail of thousands of arrows, the chances of the arrows penetrating the plate itself was pretty low, even with a 100 lb.+ draw weight. Their armor and terrain fatigued them immensely and many of them were beaten in hand-to-hand combat (e.g. the Duke of Alençon by Daffyd Gam) pulled, exhausted from the muck and held for ransom (e.g. the Duke of Orléans) or taken prisoner only to be executed later when the remaining French cavalry rallied. Heavy cavalry with an unobstructed route to archers were incredibly powerful, even after mercenary crossbowmen were supplanted by skilled longbowmen. Gendarmes were the crown jewel of French fighting forces into the early sixteenth century. It took tercios and Reiters to actually bring an end to the dominance of heavy cavalry.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
GreatGreen posted:Sorry to interrupt all the balance talk, but it looks like Pillars 2 has a mode where the camera follows the PC / group, Diablo style. That's really cool.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
BTW, I think Battle Brothers does a good job of making armor about progressing to heavier and heavier sets which are always better if you have the stats to use them vs. their weapons, which also progress, but each type of weapon has specific applications that make them valuable to keep around.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:My "issue" with monks is how due to their "get hit to do stuff" thing the seemingly best thing to do for them is to ignore deflection and instead strap them in plate for high DR, which doesn't mesh with my idea of what a monk should be thematically. Wounds also clash with my preffered playstyle of heavy cc and enemy lockdown.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:According to rope kid, Sneak Attack and Carnage is actually one of the combos that won't work in Deadfire.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Avalerion posted:Well that's just perfect then.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 16:52
|
|
I'll prob turn Xoti into this.
|
It's important to remember that in Twin Elms Pallegina is not choosing between her country and some other cause, but between different ways to help her country. In the endings where she becomes a Kind Wayfarer, she didn't leave the order. The order left her.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
No, if Pallegina is dead, she's dead. If you never recruited her, she's not in the Deadfire. Whether you encounter her as a Kind Wayfarer or a "brother" of the Five Suns, she's still a patriot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Ginette Reno posted:I forget if this was covered in the updates, but are we still able to create merc companions in Poe2 if we want to do something gimmick like a 5 Ranger bear party? Ravenfood posted:But would her subclass change to reflect her narrative status or is she a Five Suns paladin regardless because that's what her training/skills/soul says she is regardless of what the order specifically says?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Anyway, for a belated "real" response to what we're doing with rogues, we're emphasizing their mobility/invisibility tricks much more. Instead of choosing between Crippling and Blinding Strike at 1st level, rogues pick between Crippling Strike and Escape. Escape grants a large (but brief) Deflection boost after activation and upgrades into other abilities that turn the rogue invisible (Shadowing Beyond), allow the next attack to paralyze (Shadow Step), and other goodies. Backstab is much more potent and can be triggered in combat from invisibility. A high level rogue can repeatedly Escape around the battlefield, gaining brief spikes of huge Deflection while turning invisible and/or gaining the Swift (+5 Dex) inspiration. All of the offensive abilities are still present, as are abilities like Coordinated Positioning and Smoke Cloud, but I think the emphasis on hopping around and cloaking is the biggest change.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
I don't think it would have required branching the story to give the player more agency in the aftermath of the trial. IMO a failed assassination attempt against the duc would have been as agitating as a successful one. The Dozens/angry Dyrwoodans still would have rioted and burned Brackenbury and Thaos still would have headed to Twin Elms.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:In theory, you could have still played Darklands without the manual, you would just have needed an encyclopedic knowledge of Catholic saints to understand the magic system
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That you could probably trial-and-error I think, but the saints were impenetrable
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Furism posted:Everybody wants to be the maker of the next Mass Effect or World of Warcraft or whatever but AAA games are a dangerous business. 2house2fly posted:They're probably still coming up with them
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Meyers-Briggs Testicle posted:what happens if you pick trickster/enchanter? gain access to illusion spells but cannot cast illusion spells
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Yeah, it's a bug in our UI. Sister of the Reaping moon is Xoti's monk order.StashAugustine posted:So basically no drawback other than the inherent drawbacks of multiclassing? e: That also applies to other subclasses that gain access to another class' goodies. They're always more "expensive", i.e. higher level.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2017 20:31
|
|